This week's episode examines whether the characters can really handle the power they're all chasing after

HBO

"Who can rule without wealth or fear or love?"
–Viserys Targaryen

This week's Game of Thrones, "A Golden Crown," revolves around the shifts
in power that continue to dictate the future of Westeros. King Robert's
grasp on power is a tenuous one, and the Lannisters and Daenerys
Targaryen are poised, in their own ways, to challenge his claim to the
throne. How can he hang onto his title? And is it best for Westeros if
he doesn't?

The Lannisters continue to administer their
particular brand of influence over the kingdom with their wallets.
Though he hasn't appeared on-camera yet, family patriarch Tywin casts a
phantom presence over the show—both through regular dialogue referring
to him and in the presence of his three children Cersei, Jaime, and
Tyrion. (Tyrion in particular, shows the impact of his upbringing in his
crafty escape from the Eyrie and his continued insistence that "a
Lannister always pays his debts"). In truth, Tywin's deep pockets may
have more power of the fate of Westeros than anything that the king
actually does.

We've previously seen the intensity with
which Tywin's daughter Queen Cersei is grooming her son Joffrey, the
presumed next-in-line for the throne. But it isn't until "A
Golden Crown" that we discover why: Joffrey is not the king's actual
son, and given his appearance (and the tryst we witnessed in the premiere episode),
he's likely the result of the incestuous affair between Cersei and
Jaime. If this is Cersei's calculated attempt to gain the iron throne
for the Lannisters, it's too bad she doesn't have a better candidate
than the bratty, amoral Joffery.

Of course, things
aren't going very well in Westeros as it stands anyway. It's obvious by
now that Robert Baratheon is a wholly inadequate king. He shirks his
duties to indulge in a constant parade of wine and prostitutes, and the
decisions he does find time to make—like the joust in Ned's honor—are rash and self-indulgent. When Robert thoughtfully says, "that was
not kingly," after he slaps Cersei, it's like a child playing dress-up,
trying to figure out how a grown-up would act (and his irritated "I'm
the king, I get what I want" later in the episode also rings of a spoiled
schoolyard bully). Robert is an enormously simple person doing an
enormously complex job, and the negative impact of his reign has
already begun to damage Westeros.

Given Robert's
petulance, it may seem that one of his only positive actions was picking
a good King's Hand in the honorable, guileless Ned. Ned has spent much
of his early days as the Hand putting out the king's small fires and
investigating Jon Arryn's death, but his temporary assumption of the
throne in Robert's absence leads to a shocking order: the trial of Tywin
Lannister, for crimes committed by his favored knight in retaliation
for Tyrion's imprisonment.

Ned's principles are, as
always, admirable, and he's clearly interested in justice. But the sad
truth is that the lack of guile that makes him honorable also makes him a
pretty poor king. It's a terrible idea to order the arrest of the man
who is single-handedly financing your kingdom. Ned's other major cause as
king's hand—a refusal to support the killing of the pregnant Daenerys
—is a similarly principled but exceptionally dangerous position to
take. By ordering Tywin's arrest, Ned is basically committing an act of
war. No matter how noble his intentions, his total disinterest in
politics is as dangerous for Westeros as Robert's carelessness.

Across
the narrow seas, Daenerys completes her assimilation into Dothraki
culture when she eats (and manages to keep down) a raw horse's heart—an old custom which the Dothraki believe will strengthen her unborn son.
As a stunned Viserys observes, they love her, and it's easy to imagine
them following her into battle should she decide to reclaim her
birthright and take the iron throne.

But could she be
queen of Westeros? Any doubts about Daenerys' willpower and strength of
character have been erased over the first six episodes of Game of
Thrones, and tonight's episode offers the strongest proof yet, as she
watches impassively while her brother is burned to death by molten gold
placed upon his head (a darkly ironic punishment which brings whole new
meaning to "uneasy lies that head that wears a crown").

Unlike
the haughty Viserys, Daenerys is in a unique position to navigate the
cultural divide between the Dothraki and the mainlanders, because she
moves fluidly between both sides. And her unborn son Rhaego—born of a
union between the strongest of the Dothraki and the "dragon" of the
storied Targaryen clan—will have even more symbolic and actual power,
should he be in a position to use it.

But the odds of
the Targaryens returning to the throne are small. There's still the
matter of the Narrow Sea, which separates the Dothraki from the rest of
Westeros, and which they superstitiously refuse to cross. And there are
plenty of other factions vying for the throne who would stand in their
way.

So what to make, in the end, of the "golden crown"
of the episode's title? It refers, metaphorically, to the golden crown
of hair that characterizes the Targaryens, who lost the throne, and the
Lannisters, who stand to gain it. And it refers, literally, to the
unusual, hubristic death of Viserys. His pursuit of the crown led to a
"crown" that destroyed him. Those seeking the actual crown would be wise
to recognize that it could easily do the same to them.

Note:
For the sake of viewers who are experiencing the Game of Thrones story
for the first time, we request that those who have read the Song of Ice
and Fire series avoid revealing spoilers for upcoming episodes in the
comments section below.

Most Popular

His paranoid style paved the road for Trumpism. Now he fears what’s been unleashed.

Glenn Beck looks like the dad in a Disney movie. He’s earnest, geeky, pink, and slightly bulbous. His idea of salty language is bullcrap.

The atmosphere at Beck’s Mercury Studios, outside Dallas, is similarly soothing, provided you ignore the references to genocide and civilizational collapse. In October, when most commentators considered a Donald Trump presidency a remote possibility, I followed audience members onto the set of The Glenn Beck Program, which airs on Beck’s website, theblaze.com. On the way, we passed through a life-size replica of the Oval Office as it might look if inhabited by a President Beck, complete with a portrait of Ronald Reagan and a large Norman Rockwell print of a Boy Scout.

“Well, you’re just special. You’re American,” remarked my colleague, smirking from across the coffee table. My other Finnish coworkers, from the school in Helsinki where I teach, nodded in agreement. They had just finished critiquing one of my habits, and they could see that I was on the defensive.

I threw my hands up and snapped, “You’re accusing me of being too friendly? Is that really such a bad thing?”

“Well, when I greet a colleague, I keep track,” she retorted, “so I don’t greet them again during the day!” Another chimed in, “That’s the same for me, too!”

Unbelievable, I thought. According to them, I’m too generous with my hellos.

When I told them I would do my best to greet them just once every day, they told me not to change my ways. They said they understood me. But the thing is, now that I’ve viewed myself from their perspective, I’m not sure I want to remain the same. Change isn’t a bad thing. And since moving to Finland two years ago, I’ve kicked a few bad American habits.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

Trinidad has the highest rate of Islamic State recruitment in the Western hemisphere. How did this happen?

This summer, the so-called Islamic State published issue 15 of its online magazine Dabiq. In what has become a standard feature, it ran an interview with an ISIS foreign fighter. “When I was around twenty years old I would come to accept the religion of truth, Islam,” said Abu Sa’d at-Trinidadi, recalling how he had turned away from the Christian faith he was born into.

At-Trinidadi, as his nom de guerre suggests, is from the Caribbean island of Trinidad and Tobago (T&T), a country more readily associated with calypso and carnival than the “caliphate.” Asked if he had a message for “the Muslims of Trinidad,” he condemned his co-religionists at home for remaining in “a place where you have no honor and are forced to live in humiliation, subjugated by the disbelievers.” More chillingly, he urged Muslims in T&T to wage jihad against their fellow citizens: “Terrify the disbelievers in their own homes and make their streets run with their blood.”

The same part of the brain that allows us to step into the shoes of others also helps us restrain ourselves.

You’ve likely seen the video before: a stream of kids, confronted with a single, alluring marshmallow. If they can resist eating it for 15 minutes, they’ll get two. Some do. Others cave almost immediately.

This “Marshmallow Test,” first conducted in the 1960s, perfectly illustrates the ongoing war between impulsivity and self-control. The kids have to tamp down their immediate desires and focus on long-term goals—an ability that correlates with their later health, wealth, and academic success, and that is supposedly controlled by the front part of the brain. But a new study by Alexander Soutschek at the University of Zurich suggests that self-control is also influenced by another brain region—and one that casts this ability in a different light.

Should you drink more coffee? Should you take melatonin? Can you train yourself to need less sleep? A physician’s guide to sleep in a stressful age.

During residency, Iworked hospital shifts that could last 36 hours, without sleep, often without breaks of more than a few minutes. Even writing this now, it sounds to me like I’m bragging or laying claim to some fortitude of character. I can’t think of another type of self-injury that might be similarly lauded, except maybe binge drinking. Technically the shifts were 30 hours, the mandatory limit imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but we stayed longer because people kept getting sick. Being a doctor is supposed to be about putting other people’s needs before your own. Our job was to power through.

The shifts usually felt shorter than they were, because they were so hectic. There was always a new patient in the emergency room who needed to be admitted, or a staff member on the eighth floor (which was full of late-stage terminally ill people) who needed me to fill out a death certificate. Sleep deprivation manifested as bouts of anger and despair mixed in with some euphoria, along with other sensations I’ve not had before or since. I remember once sitting with the family of a patient in critical condition, discussing an advance directive—the terms defining what the patient would want done were his heart to stop, which seemed likely to happen at any minute. Would he want to have chest compressions, electrical shocks, a breathing tube? In the middle of this, I had to look straight down at the chart in my lap, because I was laughing. This was the least funny scenario possible. I was experiencing a physical reaction unrelated to anything I knew to be happening in my mind. There is a type of seizure, called a gelastic seizure, during which the seizing person appears to be laughing—but I don’t think that was it. I think it was plain old delirium. It was mortifying, though no one seemed to notice.

A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

“All the world has failed us,” a resident of the Syrian city of Aleppo told the BBC this week, via a WhatsApp audio message. “The city is dying. Rapidly by bombardment, and slowly by hunger and fear of the advance of the Assad regime.”

In recent weeks, the Syrian military, backed by Russian air power and Iran-affiliated militias, has swiftly retaken most of eastern Aleppo, the last major urban stronghold of rebel forces in Syria. Tens of thousands of besieged civilians are struggling to survive and escape the fighting, amid talk of a rebel retreat. One of the oldest continuously inhabited cities on earth, the city of the Silk Road and the Great Mosque, of muwashshah and kibbeh with quince, of the White Helmets and Omran Daqneesh, is poised to fall to Bashar al-Assad and his benefactors in Moscow and Tehran, after a savage four-year stalemate. Syria’s president, who has overseen a war that has left hundreds of thousands of his compatriots dead, will inherit a city robbed of its human potential and reduced to rubble.

Democrats who have struggled for years to sell the public on the Affordable Care Act are now confronting a far more urgent task: mobilizing a political coalition to save it.

Even as the party reels from last month’s election defeat, members of Congress, operatives, and liberal allies have turned to plotting a campaign against repealing the law that, they hope, will rival the Tea Party uprising of 2009 that nearly scuttled its passage in the first place. A group of progressive advocacy groups will announce on Friday a coordinated effort to protect the beneficiaries of the Affordable Care Act and stop Republicans from repealing the law without first identifying a plan to replace it.

They don’t have much time to fight back. Republicans on Capitol Hill plan to set repeal of Obamacare in motion as soon as the new Congress opens in January, and both the House and Senate could vote to wind down the law immediately after President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office on the 20th.

Even in big cities like Tokyo, small children take the subway and run errands by themselves. The reason has a lot to do with group dynamics.

It’s a common sight on Japanese mass transit: Children troop through train cars, singly or in small groups, looking for seats.

They wear knee socks, polished patent-leather shoes, and plaid jumpers, with wide-brimmed hats fastened under the chin and train passes pinned to their backpacks. The kids are as young as 6 or 7, on their way to and from school, and there is nary a guardian in sight.

A popular television show called Hajimete no Otsukai, or My First Errand, features children as young as two or three being sent out to do a task for their family. As they tentatively make their way to the greengrocer or bakery, their progress is secretly filmed by a camera crew. The show has been running for more than 25 years.